threeseas wrote:
threeseas wrote:
Two catagories of answers:
symptoms and cause
or from the other direction:
cause and effect.
Seems to me many have found arguement against software patents that only
deal with the symptoms or effect of software patents, rather then the
more fundamental underlying reasons why software doesn't qualify for
patent status.
So how about it?
why do you think software should not be patentable? and is your answer
cause or effect?
So far I have seen only at best "symptoms" or "effects" in comment
responses.
The "effects" are obvious, skippy. A patent is a legal monopoly on a
technique. If the technique is obvious, it limits creativity and
productivity.